7

Reading this question, it is simply a chess puzzle with no further context, and the answer is simply a solution to the chess puzzle.

In the Stack Overflow site, it is expected that users research the question before asking, providing their own research along with the question. Is there any similar concept on Chess Stack Exchange - e.g. providing which ideas or lines you have considered? I couldn't find anything when browsing through the help section.

My two cents would be that without such a requirement, the asker might as well plug a question such as the above into a chess engine if they just want to solve the puzzle and win a free lunch.

| |
  • This is not StackOverflow and StackOverflow logic has no reason to apply here. – David Jul 6 at 10:20
  • @David I asked a binary question and I find that your comment does not contribute to the discussion to resolve said question. – FerventHippo Jul 6 at 10:41
  • That's why it's a comment and not an answer. I'm just pointing out that yout analogy with StackOverflow does not apply – David Jul 6 at 11:43
2

IMHO this puzzle illustrates a nice endgame technique (similar to the famous Réti endgame study) and is therefore a valuable read for the average Chess Stack Exchange reader. There's nothing wrong with posting a question in this format; some research (which lines the author has tried) would slightly improve the question, but they're not required.

the asker might as well plug a question such as the above into a chess engine if they just want to solve the puzzle

That will tell them the optimal moves, but not necessarily the best practical lines, because the engine might prefer sacrificing a queen to getting mated in 15. It also won't tell you the beauty/clue of the solution.

and win a free lunch.

I'm not sure if ongoing contests are a thing in the chess world, but in any case, it's good to provide attribution if you found a puzzle/study elsewhere and post it here. Our sister site Puzzling Stack Exchange even has a standard off-topic reason for puzzles without attribution. The attribution in the example you mentioned is minimal, but as far as I can tell the question author does not know the original source. (If you do happen to know e.g. the composer, or where/when it was published, please edit it in.)

| |
  • It’s rather hard for it to be similar to the Reti study when it is by Reti himself. ;) – Rewan Demontay Apr 22 at 13:05
  • Heh, to my defense, I only read half of the answer. – Glorfindel Apr 22 at 13:08
  • Also, regarding giving attribution, perhaps we should set up a community question that gives a mini-guide on how to use the YACPBD and Schwalbe PBD databases. – Rewan Demontay Apr 22 at 13:09
  • Sounds like a plan! – Glorfindel Apr 22 at 13:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .